tristanb: I'm amazed there are people who support these laws! Whose side are you on?!

I think the pre-existing copyright laws are imperfect, and I think the planned surveillance, entrapment, and restriction of traditional freedom is wrong and unjustified.

Further, this is just going to open the door for all kinds of surveillance and intrusion.

It sets a very dangerous precedent for warrentless communication search and surveilance.

For example, I do not wish to recieve a court summons for downloading open source software just because some corporate idiot on a whim thinks it violates a microsoft/apple/sun copyright of patent. Nor do I wish to be stopped in the street by a police officer who wants to check if the underwear brand I bought from ebay are genuine.

tristanb: I try to educate everyone I know on how to use torrents and get these things for free. The only "theft" is that being committed by overpaid drug-addled record company execs and overly-sexed "rockstars". They don't deserve a cent.

How do you suggest independent film makers and authors are compensated for their work? Is there any creative work at all that you value and are willing to pay for?

tristanb: If someone takes a screenshot of this post, I don't expect to be paid royalties. I am paid to work, I get paid for my work. I don't get paid for a copy of it.

Some people are paid only per copy. Many independent software developers for example. What do you suggest? Go work for a corporation instead?

GZT, I agree with you, except if you use P2P (which is legal) to download open source software/media, there is no issue.The rightsholders will be looking at those downloading copyright material, such as tristanb and others advocate.

tdgeek: GZT, I agree with you, except if you use P2P (which is legal) to download open source software media, there is no issue.The rightsholders will be looking at those downloading copyright material, such as tristanb and others advocate.

There is no reason these notices cannot be applied to open source users, just because some company or other says one or other file violates a copyright which that company asserts ownership of.

The other problem inherent in the process is the concept of a rightholder. It has been common in the states for companies to attempt to assert copyright over material for which they are not the rights holder at all. For instance, a company may claim they own the copyright for an early live performance of a particular artist when in fact they have no valid claim for that at all. In many cases it is not simple to determine who the rights holder is for a particular piece of work.

Quoting from the NZ open source society ACTA submission:

In 2005 Jennifer Urban of the Intellectual Property Clinic at the University of Southern California published a study of Takedown Notices under section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like).

As regards how the US deals with these issues, there is a massive difference in them and their culture, NZ deals with its statutes fine.

If you are an ordinary user, not downloading copyright material, such as movies, music, software, etc, etc there is no issue.

So, you're saying that it's OK to pass bad laws because they won't be enforced badly. In spite of the obvious wrongness of this train of thought, there is the fact that this law is not enforced by the NZ police or some other government agency, but that notices and actions are brought by large media corporations which for the most part reside overseas. So the apparent logic that, "we don't do things this way in New Zealand" is flawed just based on that premise.

Once the action is brought the courts (and also this copyright tribunal) will have to follow the law, and the law says that you will be found guilty of infringement unless you can prove otherwise.

As regards how the US deals with these issues, there is a massive difference in them and their culture, NZ deals with its statutes fine.

If you are an ordinary user, not downloading copyright material, such as movies, music, software, etc, etc there is no issue.

So, you're saying that it's OK to pass bad laws because they won't be enforced badly. In spite of the obvious wrongness of this train of thought, there is the fact that this law is not enforced by the NZ police or some other government agency, but that notices and actions are brought by large media corporations which for the most part reside overseas. So the apparent logic that, "we don't do things this way in New Zealand" is flawed just based on that premise.

Once the action is brought the courts (and also this copyright tribunal) will have to follow the law, and the law says that you will be found guilty of infringement unless you can prove otherwise.

Incorrect, The act did not rewrite the Bill of Rights...

Minimum standards of criminal procedure

Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

(a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

(b) the right to be tried without undue delay:

(c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

(d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

(e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

(f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

(g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:

(h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:

(i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child's age.

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Again you are incorrect pajamian. You are blinded behind your desire to download copyright material, that honest people pay for.

It is not a bad law, it was however implemented in a poor way. Those that criticise, criticise for that reason, and of the guilty if accused issue. They do not criticse the issue or idea about targeting illegal downloads. This latter point is all that you are seeking.

The law will be enforced in NZ, as is the case with NZ Statutes. You do need to get your facts correct, every post has errors as well as your misguided assumptions. These cases are not going through the courts, the preavious attempt showed this to be slow and costly. It goes through the Copyright Tribunal.

But no matter, your wish is to download illegal material, you do not really appear to have an interest in this statute, you are merely hiding behind some aspects of it that are not ideal you your needs and desires.

How do you suggest independent film makers and authors are compensated for their work? Is there any creative work at all that you value and are willing to pay for?

Well, when people buy a book from the shop, or see the movie at the cinema, the filmmaker/author will get a cut.

But if I download it, or buy a pirated copy, the author will not get anything. This is, in the short-term, unfortunate for the author. But if you pick a business model that requires unnatural laws to be written and enforced (I'm saying that prevention of copying is unnatural), then that's your problem - get another job.

We didn't make laws to ensure that weavers kept their jobs when automatic looms came along! (Of course, weavers didn't have as much cash to influence politicians.)

People will keep creating things, they'll keep singing and performing, there'll still be product placement in movies, and advertisements in TV to make some money.

But if it's the end of the popstar trillionaire lifestyle then so be it. Maybe kids who want to be a famous rapper can get a productive job instead! Instead of working in an industry propped up by government laws!

How do you suggest independent film makers and authors are compensated for their work? Is there any creative work at all that you value and are willing to pay for?

Well, when people buy a book from the shop, or see the movie at the cinema, the filmmaker/author will get a cut.

But if I download it, or buy a pirated copy, the author will not get anything. This is, in the short-term, unfortunate for the author. But if you pick a business model that requires unnatural laws to be written and enforced (I'm saying that prevention of copying is unnatural), then that's your problem - get another job.

Yep... Then one day you won't have actors to act on that TV series you like to download. Or singers to sing that tune you love to listen to.

I also wonder if all these people saying creative types should not worry about having food on their tables at the end of the month would work for free... As in, no salary at the end of the month after you work 9 to 5, five days a week.

When this law was raised two years ago, there was an uproar, and rightly so. Would ISP's be forced to be Internet Police? Would parents and employers get their internet disconnected due to the actions of their kids/employees? And other concerns, hence the delay to get the intending statute changed. There were not issues over the desire to stop illegal downloads of copyright material. Now, the act has been passed, and now we see those who know their downloads are illegal, they know the creators and distributors of the media will not get paid, but still they want the illegal media downloads to be allowed, under varying pretences. The post above even blames the business model! Or believes that as there is an ability to download illegally, that should be allowed as it is a faulty business model. I guess I also have an ability to rob a bank, but I donlt use that as an excuse to do that, nor do I see that ability to rob a bank decreeing that its a bank business model failure, thereby deeming me guiltfree to rob the bank.

Yep... Then one day you won't have actors to act on that TV series you like to download.

I'm sure Charlie Sheen will still be.. let me start again...

I'm sure [i]future[/i] sitcom stars will get by earning less than $2million per episode.

If there was no money in it, they wouldn't do it. Is that the end of the world? No. No more Keisha Castle-Hughes lecturing about the environment? I'm not going to cry about that!

And, no I wouldn't work for free. But I do my job 5 days a week. I don't expect to get money for nothing! I can't get the government to make laws saying that everyone who has used my services must pay me residuals!

I'm not saying that actors should act for free. Think how much money is in something like American Idol - now it's a horrible show in my opinion, but it makes a lot of money. And it would still make money (slightly less) if people pirated it. That's because you can't just get by on one episode. You must keep working.

Sure production quality might decrease - but as it's a non-productive "industry" that money will be better spent.

Now I know this will never change, but I think the public - who in all fairness should have some say in our government's decisions - should not be subject to abuse by media companies.

tdgeek: You are blinded behind your desire to download copyright material, that honest people pay for.

Please do not pretend that you know anything about me or my desires. I do not "desire" to, nor do I presently, download copyrighted materials in total disregard for peoples feelings, or source of income. I do not "desire" to have a free source of music, movies or anything else that I want to get available over the internet and elsewhere.

I *do* desire to be able to get the occasional TV show before the media industry deems our country worthy of showing it, and not a year or more after it has aired in other countries and all my friends online are discussing it like it is old news.

I *do* desire to be able to have a source to obtain old TV shows, movies, relatively rare music, books, etc, that the respective industries do not deem worthy to publish in their respective formats for whatever reasons they decide.

I *do* want to have alternatives to the vastly overpriced retail prices of media, so that I don't have to feel ripped off every time I buy some music, or a movie, or a season of a TV show.

I *do* want to share music, movies, TV, etc, with my friends without having to force them to pay through the nose for the material if they can even get it at all.

I *do not* think that I should have to constantly worry about a $15,000 fine or having my internet cut off due to some accusation. Those who think that won't happen really need to get themselves a reality check.

I Honestly don't think it is right to be labeled a criminal or pirate or selfish just because I advocate for these things, to not have what I watch and listen to and read and share constantly monitored controlled and legislated by big corporations who's only interest is in constantly reaming me up the backside for more money.

It is not a bad law, it was however implemented in a poor way.

No, it is a bad law, created for all the wrong reasons *and* it is poorly implemented, not just in a bad way, but under the guise of urgency, taking advantage of the unfortunate situation of the people of Christchurch.

The law will be enforced in NZ, as is the case with NZ Statutes.

I never said otherwise. What I did say, and still stand by is that the agencies that bring the complaints will be overseas corporations who do not have the interests of New Zealanders at heart.

These cases are not going through the courts, the preavious attempt showed this to be slow and costly. It goes through the Copyright Tribunal.

The previous attempt did not have any means to challenge it at all. The copyright tribunal is only slightly better than nothing, and worse than the courts. What both the previous attempt and this passage have in common is the presumption of guilt upon accusation.